Sanderson v. State
Decision Date | 29 February 1928 |
Docket Number | (No. 10756.) |
Citation | 3 S.W.2d 453 |
Parties | SANDERSON v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Coleman County; J. O. Woodward, Judge.
D. F. Sanderson, Jr., was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Appellant killed his father. He is the eldest of three children and was 18 years old at the time of the tragedy. He claims to have killed in defense of himself and his mother. The mother of appellant had on the day of the tragedy filed suit for divorce against deceased. The evidence indicates that prior to this time she had had a very unhappy married life, due to the drunken habits of the deceased. He had, according to her testimony, manufactured intoxicants in the home and when under their influence had made many brutal assaults upon her. On the day of the homicide, returning to the home after citation in the divorce suit had been served upon him, he again assaulted his wife and appellant's mother, bruising her, and cutting a gash over her eye, and bloodying her face. Appellant had many times intervened to protect his mother, and on this occasion his little brother came for him, and he returned from his work to her home, observing at that time the effects of the brutal assault which had just been made upon her by his father. In a little while the deceased returned to the house, and again began drinking, and, according to the testimony of the family, threatened to kill both appellant and his mother, and was about to assault them with a bottle when appellant shot and killed deceased. Officers and witnesses, arriving immediately after the homicide, observed the bruised and bloody face of appellant's mother and found near the body of deceased in a nearby sink a bottle of beer, partly empty. There was taken from the house by the sheriff of the county at this time 155 full bottles of beer. After the killing appellant immediately started towards town and, meeting Berry Bishop, the constable, stated to him, "I have killed Dad." He was taken into custody and to the courthouse, a short distance away, where he continued in a highly nervous and excited condition; was crying and shaking, as one witness described, "like a dog that had been poisoned." This witness further said he was then not in condition to talk. He was in such a condition that the constable went for a physician and upon his return 30 or 40 minutes later the appellant made a further statement to the witness Bishop, which was excluded by the court and is made the subject of appellant's bill of exception No. 1.
The witness, Bishop, had been placed upon the stand by the state and the statement of appellant proved against him, above quoted. On cross-examination, the appellant offered to prove that upon the return of state's witness, Bishop, to the courthouse the appellant stated to him:
The facts and circumstances recited in the bill, we think, show that this was but a continuation of the former conversation had between witness, Bishop, and the appellant. It was at least explanatory thereof.
Article 728, C. C. P. 1925, reads as follows:
This statute is an enlargement of the common-law rule which limited such proof to what was said at the time of making a confession or admission.
In the case of Pratt v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 281, 109 S. W. 138, Justice Ramsey, speaking for the court, fully analyzes the authorities on this subject and in his usual clear and terse style announced the following rule:
Measured by this rule and the above article of the statute, we think the proffered testimony admissible and its exclusion error. This evidence was also admissible, we think, as res gestæ.
Complaint is made of the cross-examination...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Otts v. State
...to offer the balance which may be pertinent. 18 Tex.Jur., Sec. 104, page 190; Riley v. State, 4 Tex.App. 538; Sanderson v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 3 S.W.2d 453; Arkhammer v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 191, 296 S.W. 301; Smith v. State, 104 Tex. Cr.R. 567, 285 S.W. 1094. Thus is shown the pertin......
-
Wiley v. State
...263 S.W. 297; Bryant v. State, 99 Tex.Cr. R. 600, 271 S.W. 610; Pettiett v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 255, 272 S.W. 473; Sanderson v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 3 S.W.2d 453; Robidoux v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 432, 34 S.W.2d 863; Fawcett v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 213 S.W.2d The evidence was admissibl......
-
Fawcett v. State
...who gave him ten years' confinement as a punishment herein. See Robidoux v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 432, 34 S.W.2d 863; Sanderson v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 3 S.W.2d 453; Ross v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 61, 245 S.W. 680; Browning v. State, 96 Tex. Cr.R. 103, 255 S.W. 1113; Nichols v. State, 97 T......
-
King v. State
...the incidents leading up to the homicide became admissible, under Art. 728, C.C.P., and the holdings of this court in Sanderson v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 3 S.W.2d 453; Pratt v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 281, 109 S.W. 138; Henry v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 198, 291 S.W. 542; Trammell v. State, 145 ......